Their nemesis, Gov. Scott Walker, was facing an unprecedented recall election. Their hand-picked candidate, former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk, came out of the blocks running. Their front group was set to spend millions to help push Falk over the top.

So what went wrong?

Read the whole grisly story of how the mayor of Milwaukee, Tom Barrett, who already lost to Scott Walker in 2010 (by a lot!) horned in on the Dane County lady's territory. The unions had all clustered around her, and now, Barrett has swept in. It seems like the lady is supposed to cede her ground and let the man take over. Talk about a war on women!

"No one can see a path for victory for Falk right now," said a veteran Democratic campaign insider not affiliated with either campaign. "Absent going in and tearing down Tom Barrett - which no one has expressed a desire to do, based on what I've heard - I don't know how Falk wins."

Give up, lady! You've already lost. You'll only hurt the man if you continue. That's the message. And Scott Walker himself is helping the Dem men push the lady out of the race. On Mark Belling's radio show last Thursday, the famously demonic Wisconsin governor — asked "Do you acknowledge that, that Falk's the weaker opponent?" — said:

"Let me explain why I think she is.... Because she has clearly staked herself out as being in the pocket of the public employee unions. That has not clearly been attached to Tom Barrett....

"I think her weakness was coming out early and acknowledging that she - and doing, not just acknowledging - that she signed a pledge saying she'd veto any budget that did not include a full repeal of our reforms"...

The very thing that makes her tough — that makes her the embodiment of the protest movement that produced the recall election — makes her easier for Scott Walker to attack, and that's supposed to be a reason for Democrats to turn to the man, the man who kept his distance from the movement — the movement he'd like to ride into power — until 2 weeks ago, when he announced his candidacy. Yes, in just 2 weeks he has elbowed the woman to the sidelines, and she's supposed to defer to that.

The voters have spoken, and I respect the voters in the state of Wisconsin, and I honor their decision.

Where's that honor now? Wisconsinites are supposed to drag ourselves back to the polls to try to defeat Walker again, with the same drab candidate who, back then, "didn't have a serious primary challenge and seemed to struggle to get widespread enthusiasm behind his campaign"? We're supposed to vote for him after he shunts the woman candidate to the side? The woman who's supposed to give up, after fighting for the nomination since January? Who pledged her heart to the unions — the unfaithful unions! — and who embodied the values of a protest movement without which there would be no new opportunity for Barrett?

Ironically, Barrett's 2010 opportunity came after he gained a reputation as a hero when "he was brutally beaten outside State Fair Park after trying to protect a 1-year old girl and her grandmother from an assailant." (That happened in 2009, so don't confuse it with the famous racial mob attacks at the State Fair in 2011.) He had one opportunity because he defended a woman from an attack, and now he attacks a woman to seize a second opportunity.

IN THE COMMENTS: Some people don't understand my writing, and — just like a woman — I kick "them" in the (metaphorical!) balls. But that's not what I want to front-page here. I want to front-page this set-up by Bruce Hayden:

It does make sense a bit. The problem with being closely tied to the unions is that the unions are a big part of why your fair state got into so much financial problems in the first place, and a lot of people have seemed to have sighed relief a bit as a result of non-safety workers having their collective bargaining rights curtailed.

So, tying the recall candidate too closely to the unions would tie the recall movement too tightly to the government unions. But, if the Dems get someone else running, they can go after the entirety of what Gov. Walker and the Republicans have done, instead of making the recall election a referendum on government union power.

And here's what that sets up, from Michael:

In other words, the actual issue behind this invented election is kind of a loser, so we need to run on fake invented reasons with a boss-picked candidate. Then later we can do whatever we want.

I thought one of the complaints against Walker was that he did something he hadn't said (enough) that he was going to do. But that rule only applies to Walker, Bruce, is that it?

You don't believe a word you typed in this post. You're worried about Tom Barrett. And so is Walker & his supporters. Here are a few stats that have them rightfully worried, and why Scott Walker was elected:

It does make sense a bit. The problem with being closely tied to the unions is that the unions are a big part of why your fair state got into so much financial problems in the first place, and a lot of people have seemed to have sighed relief a bit as a result of non-safety workers having their collective bargaining rights curtailed.

So, tying the recall candidate too closely to the unions would tie the recall movement too tightly to the government unions. But, if the Dems get someone else running, they can go after the entirety of what Gov. Walker and the Republicans have done, instead of making the recall election a referendum on government union power.

I've gone door-to-door for Falk and written her checks, in the past. I like her a lot. And in one of the rare times, I agree with the Walker quote you post (add to that the "Dane County" tag). The union relationship hurts her...a lot. If it weren't there, she'd be head and tails above Barrett.

Bruce Hadyen sums it up. Falk is a weak candidate who is perceived as being so closely tied with the Unions.

This is not a winning position. Despite the single minded view of the universe held by people like Garage, the Unions are NOT popular and the majority of the population who are not in Unions are rightly suspicious about the motives of this joke of a recall.

I hope to Hell Walker prevails because this is more than just a "war on women". It is a war on fiscal sanity, the taxpayers and all of the rest of us in other states who are desperately trying to hold off collapse of our systems.

If there really is a "war on women" then we need to get some better tactical leaders and concentrate on where to fight the battle. I suggest that we start in any Muslim community or country.

"So, tying the recall candidate too closely to the unions would tie the recall movement too tightly to the government unions. But, if the Dems get someone else running, they can go after the entirety of what Gov. Walker and the Republicans have done, instead of making the recall election a referendum on government union power."

In other words, the actual issue behind this invented election is kind of a loser, so we need to run on fake invented reasons with a boss-picked candidate. Then later we can do whatever we want.

I thought one of the complaints against Walker was that he did something he hadn't said (enough) that he was going to do. But that rule only applies to Walker, Bruce, is that it?

Hahahaha. Simply running against a woman is "elbowing" and "attacking" her? That's seriously fucked up since Barrett is the one that proposed a moratorium against attacks on each other in the Dem primary. Falk is the one that said Barrett should step aside and endorse her before Barrett declared.

It's sad to see how Althouse's wit is so unworthy of her opposition. Do you really think she turned into a member of the victim caucus over night? She's judging you by your own standards. And you're failing badly...

A few months ago you were all in for Falk but now you're backing a different horse. Barrett will lose to Walker anyway, apparently you don't realize that if Barrett is the candidate he will depress the fervor of those who oppose Walker.

In other words, the actual issue behind this invented election is kind of a loser, so we need to run on fake invented reasons with a boss-picked candidate. Then later we can do whatever we want.

I thought one of the complaints against Walker was that he did something he hadn't said (enough) that he was going to do. But that rule only applies to Walker, Bruce, is that it?

That's the crux of the issue. The recall proponents have constantly accused Walker of "lying to the state."

But they are now doing exactly the same thing. The recall was initially premised on restoring collective bargaining but now that the Democrats realize that's a losing issue they are pushing aside the union's hand-picked candidate for Barrett.

Of course way more people voted in 2008 than in 2010. It was a presidential election. And in '08 there were a lot of people who don't normally vote who got very excited about Obama, who won by 14 points here in Wisconsin.

So Barrett, when running in a midterm year, came in 19 points lower, relative to the Republican, than Obama did.

Talk about low enthusiasm!

Now, why, in this special election will all those don't-usually-vote people come out for Barrett?

Wouldn't it have to be that they were really incensed about that demon Walker? They're not going to saunter over to express a general opinion that Democrats are better than Republicans.

I think Walker will win by a lot whoever the opponent is, btw. If you're trying to figure out what I'm secretly trying to "do" here, forget it. There's nothing to do. Walker is going to win. I'm just observing the passing parade in my neighborhood.

The recall was initially premised on restoring collective bargaining but now that the Democrats realize that's a losing issue they are pushing aside the union's hand-picked candidate for Barrett.

Exactly who is pushing aside Falk? Which Democrats? Barrett has union endorsements. He has said over and over he would restore bargaining rights to unions.

Walker supporters are clearly afraid of Barrett, to the point where they will express faux concern over a union backed Dane County liberal woman they were just trashing before Barrett entered. And then say "Well, it doesn't matter anyway, Walker will win". Now that is fucking funny. And delicious to watch. Anyone that says their candidate will win is afraid they will lose.

garage,What are the polls showing right now? Walker leads, right? By how much? Give me a number you accept as credible, and its source. I will bet you right now that Walker's final margin of victory over Barrett, Falk, or whoever your party decides to put up, will exceed that number by 50 percent.

I have long been an opponent on the Democrats war on independent thinking women. The vilification of any woman (or minority) not marching in lock-step with the Democratic talking points seems to be getting worse since the days of Clinton's "bimbo eruptions" strategy.

I come here to get a different take on events in our beautiful state and challenge my thinking. As a Professor, Ms. Althouse, you do that well. Even if we don't always agree, I thank you for your good work.

Sorry. Still, I don't know how I would feel about getting my salary cut, and then turn around and find out Walker gave 700k+ in merit bonuses and raises to 200 of his cronies that helped him facilitate those pay cuts. Something Doyle ended by the way.

The budget is in worse shape than last Feb. And by law, I believe, that shortfall requires another special session to repair it. [Another budget repair bill]. Not a peep about it now though. Wonder why? Walker would have admit failure, that's why.

garage's recall sweetheart was Kathleen Vinehout. Made the claim that she was a "dairy farmer from Alma, WI. What's more Wisconsin that that!" Of course this is a typical level of honesty and accuracy that you get from garage. She no longer is a dairy farmer, and she is from Illinois. garage also found her "well spoken"...google her speeches...she sounds like she is going to ralph at any any moment. Hideous women. The good news is that Madison lesbians might mistake her for one of their own.

As far as Falk and the unions...she just found out that the unions will fuck over anyone for their own selfish wants. Hey Falk, now you know how we feel!

Barrett will go down big. He has been a waste of DNA as mayor of Milwaukee.

Your post is fine as far as it goes, but then you read the article and it points out that Barrett has a 14 point lead. Falk isn't getting pushed aside, she's getting her clock cleaned.

Who, exactly, owes Falk the nomination? Barrett? He's mopping the floor with her. The unions? Ultimately, they're going to have to support whoever gets nominated -- which may include pulling support from an unviable opponent.

garage's recall sweetheart was Kathleen Vinehout. Made the claim that she was a "dairy farmer from Alma, WI. What's more Wisconsin that that!" Of course this is a typical level of honesty and accuracy that you get from garage. She no longer is a dairy farmer, and she is from Illinois. garage also found her "well spoken"...google her speeches...she sounds like she is going to ralph at any any moment. Hideous women. The good news is that Madison lesbians might mistake her for one of their own.

Hahahaha. I do like Vinehout. [I get to like people Curious George]. I'm not voting for her though, and never said I would. Why would you give a shit who I would or wouldn't vote for anyway? And speaking of real dishonesty, Republican leaders are running fake Democrats and telling Walker supporters to cross over for Falk.

Walker stomps whatever Dem is chosen to oppose him, and to digress it's prescient that garage won't take Meade's bet. That's two statewide victories in 24 months. Kinda like a mandate to keep doing what he is doing, no?

Meanwhile, Romney wins the nationwide presidential election. All that money pent up on the sidelines floods into the economy, people start to feel better and loosen their pursestrings, demand is created, people are hired, and the currently very anemic recovery expands to something well in excess of 3%.

Can you not tell Althouse is pulling your leg? She is snickering away at your predictable responses! Of course she understands that the most electable candidate goes first and the Dems see Talk as a weak candidate.

Her point is that Dems are all about identity politics except when they're not. When they have to make a choice between preserving power and promoting women, their principles fly out the window.

About thinking big, you mean? Here, let Kathleen Vinehout explain that "tough decisions having to be made, thinking big fallacy:

A troubling aspect of state finances is “kicking the can down the road” or debt payments due but not paid. When the state fails to make a payment and adds this payment to future debt it costs taxpayers more. Financial staff called this practice “scoop and toss” as debt payments that are due are scooped up and tossed into the future.

Many governors have followed this practice and Governor Walker is no exception. In May of 2011 the state did not pay a $190 million debt payment. In addition, under the current budget the state delays another $338 million debt payment. Together the over-half-a-billion in delayed debt payments will cost taxpayers nearly $150 million in additional interest.Link

"Radical feminist nuns." They failed to agree with the bishops! Oh horrors! But it was HOW they didn't agree:

"The Leadership Conference of Women Religious and Network vocally disagreed with the Bishops' conference's position on the Affordable Care Act, which they supported and the Bishops did not."

And,

e nuns were commended for the "social justice work of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, Network and the Resources Center for Religious Life," but said the Conference told them they had to to separate from these groups because--wait for it--"...(I)t said the groups were 'silent on the right to life from conception to natural death' and on the Church’s view on 'family life and human sexuality.'

Silent. I envision a nun with duct tape across her mouth. There is a real war on women.

"Her point is that Dems are all about identity politics except when they're not. When they have to make a choice between preserving power and promoting women, their principles fly out the window."

An astute comment. I will give Althouse credit for helping me realize, in a way I hadn't before, that to a large extent the left does not - does *not* - actually have principles. We see it time and time again, especially on this very blog. It's all about *power*. Whatever principles the left articulates are not, they are *tactics*, nothing more than ad hoc talking points, rhetorical weapons that suit the moment, to rally the troops and silence the opposition. And as soon as the battlefield looks different - such as the enemy doing rather well against that particular tactic - suddenly the tactics, er, principles change.

They are astonishingly consistent in their inconsistency. Which of course fits my First Principle of Epistemology very well.

Aux armes second class citizens. The War is on. Peace is not an option.

Women are not men. Case closed, say the Roman Emperors and the Democrats that are both from a long line of pagan religious traditions supporting political power.

The Professor speaks from another point of view. One that sees women as equals in status and authority at the same time they remain different in gender.

That attitude comes straight out of Paul's letters written in 48-60 AD, although later writers using Paul's name added back in Roman traditional views on women's second class status as a way to gain acceptance for Christians in Roman society.

So keep up the good fight and keep the faith to the end, dear Professor Althouse.

The Democrats are afraid to run on their record - 137,000 jobs lost and a 3.2 billion deficit or their issue - union perks abolished to close the deficit while keeping jobs. It's beautiful day in the neighborhood but - Ann, no laughing and no jokes. "Multicultural understanding" means just one thing and that one thing is not multilevel joking.

First off, I think Ann does a good job of provoking some here who need a lot more than even she provides to get them out of the intellectual ruts of the day.

I personally do not see a women's angle as much in the trashing of poor Kathleen Falk as I do a profound Democratic Party case of bad faith. (But I do think the women's angle might be there some as well.) Bad faith in that the Barrett candidacy proves how utterly hypocritical the entire recall hysteria has been. Falk merely takes the recall at its word that its issue, its ONE AND ONLY issue, is so vital that normal democratic procedure must be set aside and a recall must be held. Yet the idea she might not win has led the rest of the Dems to throw her over for the sake of victory even at the expense of rendering the whole effort utterly incoherent. This is not normal triangulation. With normal triangulation, a candidate does not undermine the legitimacy of the election he or she is running in. But that is what a Barrett candidacy does to the special recall election's legitimacy. It's why he will lose by at least as much as he did the last time.

Why do we have to talk about male or female candidates at all? I don't think it's important. Let's just talk about candidates. I don't see anywhere that Falk is crying "Foul! You shouldn't enter my race because I'm a woman (and I got here first)."

Treating her as if she is special, or must be protected, because she is a woman degrades her as a candidate. I don't think she's asking anyone to do that.

"Because Democrats having been talking about the GOP "war" on women 24/7. They want to divide us along gender lines (amoung others). So its only fair that we scrutinize how Dems actually treat women."

You want to transfer health care to political candidacy? If you want that much of a stretch, then be honest and use the GOP talk about crossing over in the primary to vote for Falk because they think she's the weaker candidate. There's your war on women.